Nikon Z7 Review

Nikon Z7 Review

The Nikon Z7 is the company's most well-rounded camera to date: it's as well spec'd and suited for video capture as it is for stills, and the quality of both is impressive. The Z7's design offers an experience that will be familiar to existing Nikon DSLR shooters, but in a smaller, lighter body, built around the all-new Nikon Z-mount.

This is Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless camera: a 4K-capable machine which features a variant of the D850's 46MP BSI CMOS sensor, but with the addition of on-sensor phase detection AF pixels and mechanical stabilization. From our testing the only area where the Z7 comes up a little short is autofocus reliability and usability - something at which Nikon's DSLRs have long excelled.

Key features:

45.7MP full-frame BSI-CMOS sensor with on-sensor phase detection

In-body 5-axis image stabilization (rated to 5EV)

493 PDAF points with 90% horizontal and vertical coverage of the frame

The Nikon Z7 is available now for a body-only price of $3400. It is also available kitted with the 24-70mm F4 S lens for $4000 (many retailers are offering additional kits with the 'F to Z adapter' for about $150 more).

What's new and how it compares

The Z7 isn't just a D850 without a mirror: we look at the key additions and what the Z7 offers.

Having tested a Z7 for a week, this review nails it. It’s a GREAT camera for a mk1. The Mk2 version of this will be amazing.

Things I wish were better on the Z are:

-Camera grip and size (adapting a 24-70 or 70-200 is not fun or comfortable) -Full shutter range with EFCS (this blows my mind it’s capped at 1/2000) -Improved IBIS algorithm (it was inconsistent in my experience)-Faster AF in general (will come with time)-Better viewfinder exposure preview (by about 1/2 stop, what I saw, was not what I got)-controls more like a D500/850 (muscle memory)

Otherwise, it seemed a lot like if Nikon made an OMD! It even has the Super Control Panel 😂

You guys who prefer mirrorless over DSLR please read carefully the AF part: 'And in severely back-lit scenarios, more often than not the Z7 simply cannot focus at all.' High ISO performance is no different than D7200 which is sold for 900$. This guy is not small at all than why go for mirrorless?

"'And in severely back-lit scenarios, more often than not the Z7 simply cannot focus at all.'...than why go for mirrorless?"

You're generalizing to all mirrorless. This isn't about all mirrorless. The real issue is that a first generation product (in this case, first generation FF mirrorless) from any company is generally inferior. The Z7 is a first-gen product for Nikon. The same goes for Canon's EOS R. Other companies, such as Fuji, Sony, Oly, with their respective chosen mirrorless formats have been at it more ambitiously and for longer. And as a result, they have better AF performance. It's like if a company came out with their first-generation DSLR that didn't have good AF. Would you say, "Why go for DSLR?" You should be more specific and say, "Why go for this particular first-generation DSLR model?" The same can be said of mirrorless: "Why go for this particular first-generation mirrorless model?"

@davesurrey - "it's as if all the years of Nikon's experience with Full Frame count for nothing."

Mirrorless is different from DSLR. If it really was NOT different, than the Z7 should really be crucified because it is taking such a big step backwards in AF performance. For example, let's say that the Z7 wasn't mirrorless. Let's say that it was instead Nikon's latest DSLR. Let's say that it was Nikon's update to the D850, the D890. Would people be OKAY with the fact that its AF performance was worse than the prior D850? No, they wouldn't be okay with it because Nikon has been making FF DSLRs for so long, and their DSLR technology has gotten progressively better over many years. But that's not the case with the Z7 because the Z7 is not simply Nikon's latest FF DSLR. It's Nikon's 1st FF mirrorless.

T3, it's not just the woeful AF but such things as the poor touch screen implementation, the banding, limited buffer size, aggresive NR, shutter shock ....just look at the list of Cons in the review , hardly any of which relate to it being mirrorless. Nice try though.To be fair Canon's offering seems even worse.

I concur that mirrorless has its own advantages. I am not against it at all. I dont think the sensor can lock on the subject in every scenario. A seperate AF mechanism is much more efficient than the sensor alone. And you need some space to dissipate heat between the parts so shrinking the size too much means heat. Mirrorless has the advantage of video but I am not a film maker.

Basically look at several other mirrorless options and 99% of your comments about “mirrorless issue” is just BS. I won’t address them all since the following should sum it all up.

EOS R does no hunting since it has no hybrid AF. It doesn’t have those AF related banding issues.

The Sony mk3 bodies and A9 all by themselves debunks the rest. They face and eye track better than DSLRs, they have deep buffers, and the A9 does 20 FPS while tracking with no black out, silent and with live view feed, basically beating the pants of all DSLRs in that respect.

Your approach is like pointing to a murderer or a rapist and then claiming that they represent all human beings.

"Basically look at several other mirrorless options and 99% of your comments about “mirrorless issue” is just BS. I won’t address them all since the following should sum it all up."

As Barple said, these are Nikon-specific mirrorless issues, and by entering mirrorless at all, Nikon has brought them upon themselves. These issues did not exist in their DSLRs, because they were DSLRs, and didn't work in ways that would create the issues. Mirrorless tech is completely different than DSLR, beyond the sensor capturing an image. It's A LOT more sensor, processor, and programming dependent.

"EOS R does no hunting since it has no hybrid AF. It doesn’t have those AF related banding issues."

Hybrid AF doesn't cause this. What makes Sony and Nikon's mirrorless AF hybrid is the inclusion of CDAF, which any sensor can use, as it only requires the basic sensor to capture an image. 100% of the pixels are imaging pixels. Focus is determined by pulsing the image in and out to see where the most detail exists. It's very clunky, and what Nikon was using in live view before the Z 7. With Sony's Hybrid AF, OSPDAF is used to acquire focus quickly, and CDAF is used to do the final fine tuning (no pulsing necessary), ensuring focus is spot on.

On to Canon's DPAF, they create their own headaches by splitting every single pixel into 2. One half for continuous imaging, one half for continuous OSPDAF. The focusing pixel turns back into an imaging pixel at the time of capture. As if Canon didn't have enough IQ headaches, splitting the pixel reduces the overall capture site area, once again reducing image quality. Think of it as one large band covering the sensor. You still lose out on quality vs non-DPAF.

"The Sony mk3 bodies and A9 all by themselves debunks the rest. They face and eye track better than DSLRs, they have deep buffers, and the A9 does 20 FPS while tracking with no black out, silent and with live view feed, basically beating the pants of all DSLRs in that respect."

Yes, and this is from almost a decade of mirrorless evolution on Sony's part. Nikon has far less time invested, especially in medium/large sensor cameras, which has resulted in their current performance hiccups.

IMHO the biggest letdowns are buffer depth, one card slot and sub-par AF. Then battery comes in second place: but more than battery I'd say power efficiency. The batteries have the same juice than Sony's but the cipa rating is behind.

Having tested out a Z7 for a week, the buffer is truly a non issue with XQD cards. It clears so unbelievably fast, that you have to lay in deep to reach it, and by the time you let off the shutter, it’s already written to card. The Z6 could have a buffer of 3 frames and you’d never know it. Just look up videos of the D5 clearing its buffer to XD cards, it’s INSANE.

However the single card slot and AF are slight let downs. However all things considered, the AF in most cases is just fine. If you shoot sports, the D500 and D5 are better bodies anyway. For most people using a D850, this ca,era could totally replace it.

One thing that wasn’t mentioned was general responsiveness. I don’t feel like this camera could confidently replace an 850 for say, a wedding shooter, but it’s close enough where the mk2 version, definitely will be able to.

The biggest let down is the AF. In consist AF behavior sucks since it is there all the time. The single card thing is only an issue to failure and is this not always an issue.

To me a camera has to really do one thing right no matter what. And that is AF, especially since lenses no-a-days focus by wire thus deminishing how well you can achieve focus if you need to over ride the camera.

IMHO the biggest letdowns are buffer depth, one card slot and sub-par AF. Then battery comes in second place: but more than battery I'd say power efficiency. The batteries have the same juice than Sony's but the cipa rating is behind.

Banding is completely unacceptable here, based on the measurements it seems to show up very early on and there is no possibility of pushing shadows at all. The 'real' DR is at least 3 stops lower than the D850. They must have made a prototype and compared it to the D850...what an incredible blunder.

Banding is a complete non issue as it can be completely removed without ANY resolution reduction with RawTherapees latest Dev Nightlybuild. It is 100% certain, that others will follow. So this should have been mentioned in the review.

I don't think the final number of 89 is worth all the fuss. What matters more is, what can and can't the Z7 do, and that's all laid out in a very thorough review. Maybe we should come up with our own final score, and forget the assigned score - there is NO score that would please everyone.

But I'm not beyond being bugged. The guys at dpreview put a lot of time and effort into their reviews, and I think they're done as fairly and objectively as possible. And we don't have to pay a dime for it. For sticking their necks out, rather than being thanked, they get sniped at. Yeah, that does bug me.

How is the Z7 handling better than the R when the grip isn’t large enough to accommodate all 3 grip fingers and doesn’t let you use the touchscreen to focus when your eye is up to the viewfinder? The EOS R is the best handling camera I’ve ever used.

- Mfkn bar- No proper mode dial- Only one jog wheel if you want a mode dial- Stupid customization choices- Unmarked 4-way controller on the rear, for some reason, even though it's not assigned to AF point selection by default- Where is the DoF preview button near the mount?

Need I go on? The Z7 trashes the EOS R in controls and ergos five ways to Sunday. And I HATE Nikon's interface!

A7 III owners who also own the A6300 say the AF is roughly identical. And the A7 III has incredible AF (better than the A7R III, too). Of course, you get more features on the newest cameras, but the speed and precision are about the same. The only Sony camera with better AF is the A9, and that can hang with the 5D and 1DX II.

Yes, machines can "mess up." But more often than not, they still do better than humans. If I did 1,000 manually focused shots (each done within a specific amount of time) and compared them to 1,000 autofocused shots, I'd put my money on the autofocus shots as having a higher percentage of in-focus shots. Then the next step is to choose cameras that have the highest success rate in the broadest range of situations. But I'd say that even cameras with fairly modest autofocus performance will, statistically, still do better than the average human. And the human will do even worse when speed is a factor. And worse still when subject movement is a factor (even for portraits, especially with narrow DOF). So all things considered, we really do need to have confidence in our "machines", because humans are NOT machines (although I certainly wish I had the speed, accuracy, and consistency of a machine).

@T3 that's sheer nonsense and you know it.If you add a time factor, I agree. If you have to shoot 1000 frames and you have 1000 seconds to do it, AF will perform better. But for critical work, I use MF. Period. The model/subject can wait.

Billions of years ago, when i first start, AF was not. Me and a lot of other photographers used focusing, it was the only game in town. For sports and action AF is a good thing. But portraiture it is not as needed. A good photographer with a least 20/60 vision should be able to do it.

Remember that the A7R II and A6300 were launched around the same time. The A6300 easily bested it in AF and fps, because an APS-C sensor isn't as demanding processing-wise. It's the same reason the Z 7 is so poor in AF, while Nikon 1 from many years ago was very good. Now that Sony's optimized their OS and added a fast LSI, FF has caught up to APS-C.

It's not that the A7 III isn't amazing, it's that technology continually improves. An APS-C with the current tech would be near A9 level. Drop the stacked sensor inside, and it will surpass the A9. And then technology improves again, and we get the A9 II. Etc.

Given the pityful results I wholeheartedly agree! They should have let Sony take over the whole thing and simply pay them the development fees. They would have gotten something useable without banding.I guess they overextended themselves propelled by the successes of the D850 that clearly went to their heads.

Sony offered them the A7R II sensor for the D850. Nikon declined, and decided to "customize" the sensor. By customize, that meant adding 3MP, months of backorders due to teething yields of a brand new sensor, and lower IQ than the A7R III. The same sensor with OSPDAF and a thinner glass cover are in the Z 7, reducing IQ even further.

I understand the hair-splitting over various things, it's an expensive body, but the Nikon really deserves more if only because (honestly) if you own this and can't take a good shot under just about every condition, the problem isn't camera shortcomings.

"But first generation products are rarely perfect, and the Nikon Z7 is no exception."

Rarely are any generation products perfect. If it has to be a Nikon, OK. Otherwise it is difficult to understand the great excitement. The Z7 is for sure a better camera then the second generation Sony a7II but the Sony can be yours for under 1000 USD/EUR. And there are already native used lenses on the market. If anybody has to try the FF-adventure, I know, what I will recommend.

Crying " first generation" as mitigation is shameful. This manufacturer chose to hold back several years after the mirrors were dropping from other products... Their choice , and the market advantage of watching where others failed ! To then release a £4000 Z7 with one card slot after watching Sony drown, is like an episode from dumb and dumber. To then reuse a sensor , aka second sell on technology , proves their respect for the users. I am still a little confused how the microlens re jig for the "short back distance" is supposed to work just as well with the old lenses and adaptor. If your going to be late to the party and charge a premium price... have a new sensor, a range of lenses and take heed of where others failed before you .

Reading what @Bob Jameson says at length below about all the features built into the Z7 makes me wonder. I was surprised years back when they decided to turn still cameras into movie makers by adding video. Isn't about time they threw in an FM radio and GPS?

Some cameras use Bluetooth to tether to your phone for GPS. GPS sucks batteries down pretty quickly. Better to have your easily-rechargeable phone die than the camera. And many phones can double as an FM radio, so no need to put that in a camera, either.

In fact I was joking, being sarcastic. The kind of gps I had in mind was not to pinpoint where a shot was taken but to drive on the road from A to B. In the UK we call it satnav, which IMO is a better name.

[How funny to see an entry from NowHearThis. That is an alias I also use but not here, of course.]

@keepreal I’ve been using this alias for 10yrs or so. 😉 Been a big fan of their speakers since they came out with their 1.8 towers back in the 90’s. Their tonal accuracy and smooth frequency response always impressed me. The foam surrounds on the midranges finally gave out about 4 years ago. If the C3 would come down in price I’d be tempted to swap out my current mains for this....

I don’t know, why for Nikon users? I’ve got a Nikon D700, and AF and AF-D lenses that are fully compatibles with that camera. The D700 is slow has no proper tracking and the lot. But why pay 3000 EUR for a camera that does not use the full potential of the new mount. I mean 24-70 f4, really? Did they need to put the bigger mount on for that? 24-120 f4 yes, or the other direction, 50 mm f1.2 WITH AF, or really compact 20 mm f1.8, 35 mm f1.8 or 50 mm f1.8 to make use of the really compact form factor. I’ll hang on to what I have, till it’s really worthwhile ie. A much more reliable AF and more lenses to choose.

@Rudolf Appel, Exactly. The Z7 is for those who need the higher MP and moving to the next evolution in photography. It's an investment for the future. The lens will keep on coming. The camera will get obsoleted but the lenses will stay.

Nikon said that the Z mount will provide lenses that we have not seen before. It just mean to say, the F mount is going away. If you need the better IQ now in an F4 lens, purchase it now. Otherwise, there is always some other time to buy it when the F2.8 or F1.2 will start pouring in.

@BBTurbo,a first-gen piece of consumer electronics is now 'an investment'...lol.These are some of the craziest posts ever but no different from others I read for other camera brands. I am starting to suspect they come from the same guy trolling for a different brand under a different pseudonym. Or maybe they are just meant to increase the comments by baiting people.

LOL1) If you can not afford 3000 euro for body. Then you can not afford 1.2 or less lens.2) You can not create kit with such expensive lens. No one will buy it.3) You can not delay release and spend additional year for development of lens when you know that your rival plan to release camera this year.4) Z-mount obviously for future medium format mirrorless cameras like Fuji 50R.

For me the only attraction of this camera is the compact size and lower weight. I expect the handling is very nice too. Even so, I prefer DSLR and expect always to do so. However, I wanted to read this to decide how good it might be to EVF advocates.

It comes out better than I expected but IMO the images are visibly better with the D850 and the dynamic range too, albeit by a small but visible margin.

What I think are big mistakes are to introduce new developments at the expense of banding because in a camera at this price I think it is no less than outrageous. Do we really need autofocus so accurate that banding is an acceptable price to pay?

However, the biggest surprise for me is that DPR awards it a silver when I was expecting gold. I think that this is a fair assessment, so I have to ask how come? They usually are a little OTTP with anything new and for some folk exciting. This is not so for me but for technology geeks and EVF fans I am sure many people will be delighted.

@keepreal, Banding is overblown. It can be fixed. @ProfHankD offered his services for free for a fix. All he require is a small thank you from the camera manufacturer. See detailed and technical discussion here if interested:

But you are right. The main selling point of the Z7 is the size and allows you to see several key information like histogram, for example, in real time right at the EVF. The other selling point is the new mount that, according to Nikon provides them a larger working window, to come up with better lenses. This mount is the next evolution that, unfortunately, will require new lens investments from users. The D850 and F-mount will still last a very long time so it's good we are given this option if not in a hurry.

The Z7 was a silver because it was dinged for the slower auto area AF and banding which is not really an issue as I previously stated. It's easy 4 to 5% point more if the AF is fixed in firmware.

Banding is a big sacrifice for poor AF. The idea of on sensor AF detection is sharper images, AF that is accurate. The mount is for top lenses, but even with aperture of 1.8 it is difficult to get moving objects in focus, maybe that is why the 50 mm f0.95 noct is manual, because the camera won’t provide in focus hits anyway, oh and the banding, will be there even with non AF. For even the price level of the Z6 this is hard to justify. Why does DPReview not comment on the fact that the sensor is exposed every time the lens is being changed? After a couple of changes it’s not only banding but dust too. Oh, there are no lenses to change, so don’t worry.

Um, no camera is sealed from dust when you take the lens off. Even the EOS R will eventually accumulate dust on the shutter, which will then get tossed onto the sensor in chunks. Good luck safely cleaning that off.

Also, highlight banding is a very rare phenomenon. Shadow banding, on the other hand, seems much more prevalent, and only occurs on Nikon's mirrorless.

The weightings of our scoring algorithm give lots of emphasis to image quality. And, since the Z7 produces images extremely similar to the D850 (one of the best IQ cameras we've ever tested) it was always going to score very well.

It is coincidental that they both got 89% in the sense that the weightings of our scoring system dictated that the Z7's areas of strength: video, features and connectivity (in which the z7 scored comparably to the a7R III) counter-balance its shortcomings relative to the D850.

Those weightings have been unchanged for years and are applied to all cameras.

Does the algorithm, as currently configured, give the best review results since all the top cameras are basically using the same sensor (Sony), and thus will all get the same version of a score set by benchmark Sensor - Sonys latest sensor (i.e. A7R3)?

@ironfilm - whether it is is open to question when one considers the genre it may be used for, budget etc but is it sufficiently better for anyone who is not a Nikon shooter to can their $0000's of investment in lenses etc ?

@Ironfilm"the best FF mirrorless at the moment"define what is that for you, because I really think your definition quite differs from mine, and to be honest it will differ from most shooters out there. The Z7 will have a mediocre success in my opinion as it will appeal to a very narrow market, I would call it more of a place holder set to hold back Nikon users about to jump ship. I do not see many non-nikon users getting this overpriced body and even Nikon users if they are sane will get a D850 instead. The Z7 is indeed a great camera but it does not exist in a vacuum there are better options for cheaper out there.

@ironfilm - can't discuss things with someone who is so obviously a Nikon advocate - let's reconvene this discussion in a years time and see how the model has sold but I've got to say I'm not selling up all my gear to jump to a model which is just the first iteration of mirrorless for Nikon.

what a fun, people are fighting over why nikon is not rated so much less than sony. on the other side people cant take it that sony has better AF.Both side of the people do shooting on the dining table over miniature models...I bet any camera Sony A7III or Nikon Z will NOT let anyone down in real life.

Dunno. As Nikon has just proven, you need more processor power to get a mirrorless to do things than you do for a DSLR. Stuff like that adds up quick, so despite having less moving parts, the most expensive parts of the camera (sensor, processors, RAM) probably cost more to get equal performance.

The scoring system hasn't changed for something like 8 years. The weightings that dictate the Z7 getting and 89% are exactly the same as those used every other camera in its class.

We are working on a more advanced scoring system, which should let you change the emphasis of different features (to give more importance to AF and less to video, for instance), but we haven't changed anything to ensure the Z7 got one score rather than another.

@Richard Butlerwell hurry up and change it then! Scoring saturated a while back and it is meaningless now. Clearly all current cameras would have looked fantastic 10 years ago.A camera with a single card slot, questionable AF performance to today's standards, relatively slow shooting speed, and banding for prime money cannot score the same as the top of the crop no matter how you look at it, and your silver is a clear statement of that. You cannot even appeal to innovation like it was done to the original A7s. No innovation whatsoever, just trying to be competitive by offering some features just ahead of the competition such as 10 bit video.

Our scoring system gives a lot of weight to image quality, certainly more than it does to the number of card slots a camera has.

If you look at our scoring comparison tool, you'll see that video/movies is one of the only areas we feel the Z7 outperforms the D850, so it should be clear that without it, the Z7 would have scored lower than the DSLR.

In other words, if you're not shooting video, we're not saying the Z7 offers much that's compelling over the D850 (though in-body stabilization might be of value to you).

- Built-in intervalometer- 8k movie timelapse- Focus stacking. It's phenomenal.- Instant information with the top OLED display- Best weather sealing, better designed accessory doors that will not trap water when exposed to rain- The Z7 is a damn well-built camera, the best built mirrorless full-frame camera we’ve taken apart. Sony cameras are starting to look like their software menus – complex and what you’re looking for isn’t readily apparent. -Lensrentals.com teardown- Ports are not soldered directly to the board. With Sony, a bad port means replacing the whole main board.- >70% automated manufacturing. Made in Japan. Sony is made in China.- Larger mount for future proofing. 8 stop IBIS in roadmap? Larger sensor for electronic stabilization using full sensor coverage? Possible.

- Faster and more reliable XQD card use (UHS-II is way slower and reported several failures)- Much quicker to clear buffer (Sony takes forever)- EVF is brighter, sharper, and way less noisier (hardly noticeable noise patterns) and excellent in natural linearity and color rendition- EVF shows full resolution in real time and not only after playback - EVF is more distant from the eye position. Caters better for those with eye glasses.- Easier to see autofocus area- Slightly higher viewfinder magnification- Better overall ergonomics - better grip, and better feeling (bigger) buttons that can be used with gloves- Vastly better and more logical menu system than Sony- Lens design with video in mind (24-70S is parfocal and silent)- Truthful in specs. Sony IBIS is supposed to be 5.5 stops. Z7 only 5 stops.- IBIS locks when powered off. Sony's IBIS bangs around after power-off. Loose sensor!- Better high ISO performance - less noise and no red and green blotches

- Generally less expensive adapted lenses at equal or better quality- Native lenses with MTF better than Sonys- 10-bit 4:2:2 video depth instead of just 8-bit. To put this in perspective, the Z7 outputs 65 times (6,500%) more color information than the Sony. Digital artifacts be gone in 4k resolution!- Higher bit rate on 4K recorded internally (144Mbps versus 100)- Complies with True HDR specification while Sony does not- The highest synch speed is available with EFCS and radio triggers unlike Sony's- Better IBIS and video. Sony IBIS is more jerky when vlogging while walking.- Easier to choose faces for video

@Bob Jameson: Come on now, most of these are duplicate, not true, maybe implemented in a future camera at some point or just simply small and irrelevant. The a7r3 has a lot of real, tangible advantages that matter. The only important advantage of the Nikon is the better weather sealing.

@Bob Jameson: Like the 8 stop ibis (that's not even possible due to the Earth's rotation), or the better native lenses (that don't exist, while e-mount has some of the sharpest ever made), or the 5-6 af advantages you mention when in reality the sony has superior af in every way, or the lcd resolution that you mention twice, video - it's simply better on sony cameras regardless of the specs, or some weird advantages in jpeg shooting that you keep going on about? You're a joke.

@Bob JamesonList of pros and cons should have a a weighing factor associated with it. The fact is that you can throw anything at the A7RIII and it will handle superbly, not so with the Nikon this is a recognized fact. Nikon tried to outshine the A7RIII where the Sony could be better, but about core functionalities Sony is simply superior. Keep in mind that Nikon was squarely looking at the A7RIII when making its debut and strategically made its competencies, Sony was sole at the time of A7RIII debut. Sony will have to just flex a bit of muscle in their next iteration to completely obliterate Nikon's current offering, I am not sure Nikon can catch up easily in the short term (1/2 decade or so).

Nikon fan, Bob J., gives the Z7 a 99 with Dionne Warwick cranked up in the background belting out “Solid Gold,“ while the rest of us are out shooting feature film after feature film on a Panasonic GH5. At the end of the day, a version 1 product is just that. It’s the same no matter who you are. It’s the same for Canon. Future models should be better, but I’m not holding my breath.

@ Bob Jameson, are you the 'sdaniella' of the Nikon f@boy club? No because your posts are complete horsesh*t! Your 3-part comment is like getting 3 boxes from B&H full of styrofoam and no product. Do us all a favor and stop. Your keyboard will thank you as well. OK?

Great to have choices, isn't it. But with the variety and quality of e-mount lenses available it's not really a contest (yet). I assume it is a tough sell, except to those seriously invested in Nikon glass.

I'm confused, on one hand they say it "is the company's most well-rounded camera to date", but then say the AF is not up to what Nikon has done with their DSLR's, the Dynamic Range is slightly down on the D850, and there is the possibility of banding. It also has a very small buffer. Is this somehow offset by the improved video performance and AF performance during videos! For many video is not important, so take that aspect away, and is it still the company's most rounded 'camera'? From reading the review, I don't think so. :-/

Nikon has had mostly useless AF in live view (this would include EVF as well if they had one) with, typical for FF DSLR, AF points even when using OVF clustered around the center (magic diamond). If you wanted to put your subject outside of it - tough luck. If you wanted to see what you photo would look like (WYSIWYG preview in EVF) - tough luck. If you wanted any AF in video - tough luck. You can see the pattern here. For those who don't mind D850's limitations - it's a fantastic camera. Everyone else can now pick up Z7. It also has IBIS and those who need it really appreciate it.

In saying it's the most well-rounded, we're saying it does a wider range of things well (or really well), than existing Nikon models. That isn't the same as saying it's better at every one of those things than every Nikon camera.

If you don't value its video capability and usability, the addition of image stabilization or its smaller size, then its all-round capability sounds like it's less important to you that its performance in specific areas.

I hope our review at least helped you draw the appropriate conclusion for your needs.

@Richard Butleragreed, but seems to kill the highly praised 3D tracking relevance, that seems such a big thing for you guys, sufficient to keep the D5 afloat. I can feel some contradiction in the force.... or Nikon can only make roundish cameras :-)

Yup, remember when people mocked mirrorless AF because it was poor, and said it would never surpass DSLR? Now that Nikon's released a mirrorless camera with poor AF, it's fine to have poor mirrorless AF. ;)

I am with you. The D850 is more well rounded to me. Its the best all around camera today in my opinion. It also is part of a (currently) better overall system with a better range of lenses than any mirrorless camera. Both Nikons are usable in a wider range of conditions than current FF mirrorless. That is the difference between getting the shot and leaving the camera at home or in the bag.

The AF shortcomings wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but as a landscape shooter, the banding is a bit of a fly in the ointment for me. Really frustrating to know you have a sensor with incredible inherent dynamic range only to have it limited by phase detect pixels (which I don't need).

That was pretty funny. A camera at the prize of the Z7 that actually struggles with AF and then calling the Canon unfinished. Why would I want to buy a camera that struggles in low light in 2018 in the first place?

The guys just do not like the R. A waste of time to follow that topic any further around here. It will be the repetition of missing specs, not liking the Touch Bar and comparison with much more expensive cameras to make a point.

I have handled the z7. I am a long time user of nikon cameras. FE,Ftn& F5. I use as my main cameras an F5 & Contax G1. I have, perhaps, like other' s hung on for the "camera". I wanted the Z to be the one, if nothing else to use my prime Nikkor glass. The presentation was from Nikon UK. Understanding the undoubted techenical advances developed the Z7 did not feel right. The ergonomics in my hands were so poor I did not get to the tech. I just did not want it, compounded by the large converter and even then I would not be able to use my glass as it was intended.

I have picked up some other camera's and acknowledging that ergonomics are subjective, as are my views of the Z7, there are some immediately better fits, for me, including some of Nikons own D series DSLRS and Fujis and others.

As many other have said on this sight, the best camera you have is the one you have on you, it follows that if you don't have that bond you won't want to us it and that's it.

@PDD, You should look at the bigger picture. The negatives stood out much because of the prior article about autofocus and Sony fanboys all over Nikon articles and forums pressing it down. There are multitudes of features that are in Z7 that are not in other camera or deficient in other cameras. That's what made up the score although DPReview did not put a lot of emphasis to it.

Don't just look at AF just like everybody else. Besides, the AF issue is only 1 factor of the entire AF system. Overall, the AF works great but not as much on the auto area AF-C.

The DSLR is heading for extinction with in the next 10 years. Look what the smartphone did to the P&S. Mirrorless is the future. Except for buttons, mechanical cameras are dead - no mirror, no mechanical shutter, no OVF. Oh, but we still have mechanical lenses for now. Are radio scopes in are future?

I've not used or seen the Z7. I'm sure it is a good 1st cut, but I'm a bit surprised by it's score. IMO, AF & banding short comings, should brought the scores down a bit more - I'm thinking more like 79 or 80, not 89. ..... Hum! ..... How can this be a pro grade camera with those kind of short coming? Hit rates are most assuredly lower. That's time and money!

The Nikon Z7 is solid, work capable camera. I currently shoot with an A7III, but if someone gave me a Z7 or Z6, I'd shoot with it no problem and the end result would be the same. Only reason I'm sticking with Sony for the time being is for the native small primes, but once Nikon Z lens production ramps up, I'd have no problem switching.

@Jonathan F/2 "but if someone gave me a Z7 or Z6, I'd shoot with it no problem..."

Not sure whether to laugh or take this seriously? Yeah, if anyone here was GIVEN a Z7 or Z6 they'd happily shoot with it. That's not the issue. It's being presented as a professional camera based on the outrageous price, and it's just NOT.

I think we'd all shoot with any of the recent FF mirrorless cameras if we were given them for free. But that's not reality (unless you're a Youtuber). For the rest of us, it's a question of where and how we want to spend our hard-earned money.

"but once Nikon Z lens production ramps up..."

But once that happens, who knows what other options will be out there in the market. By then, we'll probably have the A7 IV or V, and A9 II or III. And who knows what the Sigma/Panasonic/Leica alliance will have by then. There are a lot of interesting options in the mirrorless market. It's exciting times.

I am a pro photographer who shoot with less. My best autofocus system is that of a d750 which is superior to my D800. I was leaning D850 but will now go z6 because I love and doing more video. Amateurs make me laughs, I started 13 years ago with a d70, followed by D80 and D300, before my D800 and D750. If you can't do good to very good photography with the Z7 and its autofocus, I would advise you to change hobby or if you are a pro, ohhhh god... Except if you are a pro sport photographer, but then, this camera was not meant for you.

@ T3, "But once that happens, who knows what other options will be out " what do you mean, another Sony mount... Because in terms of body, do you think that when Sony will have some future camera, Nikon will have nothing to answer? For a first generation, except photo Autofocus, Nikon has bested 3rd generation Sony in almost everything else. What effectively will be important in the medium, long term is not what will be next camera but the lens mount. Investing now in the Z mount, I am sure that I am investing into the future, more so compared to the small Sony mount.

@Jean Daniel Villiers - "I am sure that I am investing into the future, more so compared to the small Sony mount."

It's ironic that Nikon users talk about small mounts when the Nikon F system has always had a 44mm lens mount. Back when EOS was released with a 54mm lens mount, Canon fans claimed that the Nikon system would forever be handicapped by its small mount that was not conducive to the modern electronic autofocus era of SLR photography.

Anyways, my point is that in the mirrorless era there are more competitive choices from systems that are more established (such as the E-mount system) and better funded by larger organizations (such as Sony and the Sigma/Panasonic/Leica alliance). My point is that we are breaking from the Canon/Nikon duopoly that existed in the SLR/DSLR market. And I think that is great for consumers! More choice, more competition is good for consumers.

"My best autofocus system is that of a d750""I started 13 years ago with a d70, followed by D80 and D300, before my D800 and D750.""If you can't do good to very good photography with the Z7 and its autofocus, I would advise you to change hobby or if you are a pro, ohhhh god..."

Well, at least you know what to expect in the Z 7, previously owning a D70. Hope you have fun reliving the good old days, at 3.5x the price...

Really, the only thing that was bested was the body. In nearly every performance metric, including image quality, the Sony runs circles around the Z 7. The Z 7 is a circa 2014 camera. I'll take a smaller camera that can AF on anything at any time than one that's bigger and couldn't hit the broad side of a moving tractor trailer.

The Z cameras have a lot going for them, mainly the in-depth compatibility with the Nikon ecosystem which includes all the flashes, batteries and lenses via the FT-Z adapter. Also I do believe the larger Z mount will be more advantageous in the long run. Sony FE lenses rely too heavily on software correction for my taste and it looks like Nikon will have better optically correct lenses due to their mount design.

I find it ironic that the cameras that output the ugliest pictures to my eye are sometimes the ones that tech heads say have the best IQ. Too many pictures with "amazing resolution!" and "no noise" and "xx stops of DR!" are rear-end ugly, with poor composition and unappealing colors. Every current FF camera has a high quality sensor. It is everything else that makes the difference. @HenryDJP If I went back to pro sports photography, I would have no issue using the Z6. Most of my best compositions were thought out in advance leaving little to AF.

About me? I joined 3 weeks ago because I was very interested in these new camera systems -exciting times. If it helps, I shot Nikon for a decade. When I downsized Sony was the only game in town. Now there are 4 and one is Nikon. I assume you are in the same boat since you are commenting under the Nikon articles? Am I right?

I want to BUY this camera... BUT that sure is a long list of Significant negatives!

It also really makes me question DPRs scoring system. If you look at the list list of cons for the A7R3, they're relatively benign whereas the Z7s are potential "showstoppers". I really don't understand DPRs scoring methodology. Either the "medal" or the "number" awarded is whacked. Frankly both seem kind of out of kilter when compared to the list of pros & cons

For me, the biggest "Con" is the current lens situation - the Z mount won't have a compelling lens lineup for years and I don't want to be plunking down $10,000 to $15,000 on sub-optimal DSLR lenses that will be outdated in two to four years when they get superseded by their mirrorless equivalents.

This makes choosing the Z7 a very tough choice. Maybe if the camera wasn't so expensive...

This camera was meant to stop the bleeding out of Nikon and those who are in the fence in deciding a new camera system. To those who are established in their respective camera systems, ask this question to yourself:

"Which camera system is best for me 5 or 10 years down the road. If I'm not happy with what I have today, should I make the painful transition now or wait until the lens lineup is complete?"

This is like marriage where you will be with each other the rest of your life. Divorce only when extremely necessary!

It's the same issue that plagued Sony-- 5 years ago. 3rd party lenses might be long in coming too, because the Z mount is a closed proprietary mount, just like Canon RF. Sony opened up the E-mount to 3rd parties back in 2011, which is why they have such huge 3rd party lens support. No need to reverse engineer, no need to pay any licensing fees. Plus Z and RF usership is still tiny, so no need for 3rd parties to offer lenses for these mounts for quite a while. Maybe Nikon and Canon will some day open up their mount spec for 3rd party use, but as for now Nikon and Canon have said that they will not. They obviously want you to buy every lens from them.

For Nikon users and Canon users it is a no brainier because of good to very good adapter. For others, it is do you invest in the future. When you see already what those two are capable with the new lens like Canon 28-70 F2 or Nikkor f.095 lens and very very good quality of the Nikon 35 f 1.8 for example. You know that these larger mount like get better quality lens in the near future.

@Jean Daniel Villiers - "When you see already what those two are capable with the new lens like Canon 28-70 F2 or Nikkor f.095 lens"

These lenses remind me of the EF 50/1.0L that Canon introduced shortly after the launch of EOS. People thought that that lens was a total game changer. Not really. It was nice to ogle at but few people bought it. It didn't make much impact on the market. Likewise, the $3000, 3.2lb RF 28-70/2L looks amazing, but I doubt many people are going to buy such an expensive, heavy 28-70mm lens. Same goes for the Z 50/0.95 which doesn't even have AF! Frankly, I think these lenses are a costly waste of resources. Then there's the $2300 2.1lb RF 50/1.2L which Canon is charging 70% more for than their EF 50/1.2L (which is $1350). I can't imagine there are many people who will buy the RF 50/1.2L. After all, the EF 50/1.2L has been around since 2007, is much cheaper than the RF version, and it hasn't been a hot seller. People aren't switching to Canon for that lens.

"Sony opened up their lens mount for one reason and one reason only: They had only a couple "native" lenses.. with or without an adapter!"

Huh? Through 2011, they already had 7 lenses. Not bad for a new, experimental system that wasn't even 2 years old yet. Nikon isn't experimenting. They've let Sony do that, and now they're attempting to follow in Sony's footsteps. Good luck with a closed mount.

"Canon and Nikon have at time of release of their full frame mirrorless, 100's of "native" lenses (adapted) between them....in every focal length, f-stop one could possibly need."

Sony had the same. Purchasing Minolta and using A-mount, ALL A-mount lenses were available for use on NEX. And unlike Nikon, they had an adapter that would AF screw drive lenses. Technically, Nikon only has around 90 lenses that AF via adapter. The other 200+ F-mount lenses aren't compatible with AF. Ironically, if you put them on Sony via a Techart Pro, you'll get AF back! XD

"Their lens line ups are to this date far larger than anything Sony has on offer, and seemingly work without any loss of IQ, focusing speed etc... unlike when mounted "non-natively" on a Sony."

Meanwhile, on Sony, you gain 5-axis stabilization on every single lens you use. On Nikon? Only 3-axis, for whatever reason. And AFing longer lenses on Nikon doesn't do very well, despite Nikon's claims that there's no difference in AF vs DSLR. We all know how good Nikon is at lying to their customer by now.

@Jean Daniel Villiers

"Nikkor f.095 lens"

There's no reason for this lens to exist. Nikon said their huge new mount enabled them to make faster lenses. You'd think that would be with AF, as Canon had already done that a decade or two ago with a mount that was slightly larger than F-mount. 0.95 lenses for F-mount have been done already. Now with a huge mount, there's no reason not to include AF. The lens is already massive, so it's not a weight/size thing.

@cbphoto123 - Hate to break it to you, but most people who buy mirrorless really aren't into using DSLR lenses with them. Most mirrorless users want native mirrorless lenses. Furthermore, the whole "adapting DSLR lenses" thing ignores a whole new generation of users who are going to be mirrorless-native, meaning they have no prior DSLR gear. These users aren't going to buy DSLR lenses to use on their new mirrorless bodies.

As you can see by Amazon sales stats, adapting DSLR lenses is not the sales driver that you seem to think it is:

If adapting DSLR lenses was truly as compelling as you think it is, we would expect the Canon and Nikon mirrorless bodies-- with their "100's of 'native' lenses (adapted)"-- to be the top sellers in mirrorless. But they obviously aren't.

@T3.. again with the Amazon hourly sales link. You are aware, are you not, that you are the ONLY person at DPR that uses these links as some sort of measuring stick?

When Sony only had a couple of native lenses yourself and many fanboys, until the most recent release of Nikons and Canons full frame mirrorless, were screaming about how great adapted lenses (NON-NATIVE) work with Sony.

Now that Canikon have full frame mirrorless cameras, and have a huge line up of adapted (NATIVE) glass... no one likes adapters anymore. Funny that, no?

At most recent count for Canon RF.. that's around 170 EF lenses ranging from fisheye to 1200mm... of which around 70 are L and 50 IS. Along with around 10 TS lenses. For Nikon somewhere in the ball park of 80 lenses.

I am not trying to "compete" with your Sony love affair. Just correcting the record from your wilfully misleading statements/spin.

I do find it rather weird, almost baffling that the AF is lacking. Considering Nikon was the first to bring PDAF into MILC (and only second after one oddball Fuji compact with on-sensor PDAF). And they've hit the homerun regarding the AF already in the first gen N1 products.

Sure I understand this has 4x the resolution and the FF sensor needs much more accuracy, but there's been some 6 years of development in the meantime.

Nikon used Aptina's OSPDAF in Nikon 1. Nikon did not create it from scratch. Now they're using Sony's OSPDAF, on a vastly larger sensor. Takes a lot more effort to get good AF on a big sensor. Experience also comes into play, and Nikon is starting from scratch in that category.

Well later they switched from Aptina to Sony sensors and their PDAF performance stayed great; Nikon had their own IP in that tech. And it's not certain they switched to Sony's PDAF. Nikon does a lot of their own development regarding sensor and AF tech.

As I said, I understand a larger sensor has bigger demands but Nikon still had a huuuuuuuge headstart and even with different sensor sizes they could still salvage experience with the stuff outside the sensor itself, such as interpreting the PDAF data in the processing pipeline.

Plus moving to a different sensor size doesn't meant hey had to start from scratch; first there's still a lot of IP they could reuse and second they had a lot of time to do the development.

I suppose it's 'good enough' for a Nikon MILC since that's what a lot of people have been waiting for and Nikon is also making space for an upgraded model, but I can totally see why lots of folks are disappointed.

And you have no problem with the tips of your fingers sandwiched between the grip and lens? I'm impressed.That's Sonys problem in a nutshell, they designed a mount for APSC and FF, but didnt take into account wider ff lenses on that mount.

The comments have been collecting since the first preview, of which there have been multiple in the meantime. However I think this is an attempt to make the most commented (perhaps the most viewed) article in DPR history.

Great review as always, the 'Silver' medal is justified too. However there is nothing that justifies a 89% rating, ie just 1pp less than A7R3 - which has vastly better AF, more native lenses, including 3rd party (don't start on old glass, only native is what counts), and cheaper. Sorry, but the score is a joke.

"A7R3 - which has vastly better AF, more native lenses, including 3rd party and cheaper"..And two card slot, and bigger buffer, and Eye-AF, and pixel-shift, and faster fps, and doesn't banding. That's all is only 1point, ridiculous.

Lens count/availability isn't part of the score for camera bodies, so isn't factored-in.

The a7R III scores better for features than the Nikon in part for the reasons Anulu mentions (though the Z7 has an intervalometer, 10-bit N-Log output and a choice of lossless or visually lossless Raw compression, which the Sony doesn't)

The only areas in which the Nikon outdoes the Sony are Build Quality and Ergonomics and Handling. But those are given enough weighting by the scoring system to cancel-out the other differences.

This might mean AF should be given more weighting in our next-gen scoring system. But bear in mind that, though there are aspects of AF where the Sony is better (which is recognized in the scoring), the Nikon offers effective AF in a variety of situations, so it still scores moderately well.

Yes, I think the score is of little use to a person trying to compare the two cameras. Most reviewers (including DPreview staff) have said that the A7III is a more refined camera and a better choice for almost every type of photographer, and yet the A7III gets the same score as the Z7?It makes no sense.

@Richard Butler - i hope you give still image quality most weight to. Not all shooters need fast AF or video or top notch ergonomics (shooting mostly from tripod). Or at least factor in different camera categories to give AF higher or lower importance.

@blue - my type of photography doesnt rely on AF at all. Mostly tripod work with manual focus on hyperfocal distance or realestate. Mostly with f10+ aperture..High dynamic range and color depth is all i care about. Wouldnt break a sweat if my camera didnt have any AF capabilities

"...comparison on the mirrorless side is the Sony a7R III, another camera we hold in extremely high esteem" Sony still doesn't have RAW with lossless compression, right?Either uncompressed or with lossy compression...

Sine when has the finer points of continuous AF tracking become the main differentiator between cameras. Really, how many people actually use continuous AF at its limits enough that is a real sticking point?

Amazing how quickly these reviews can get done if need be. The silver award might sting a bit, but it makes the D850 look even more attractive and I don't think Nikon will be terribly upset if users buy a D850 instead.

Know what would really be a hoot? Give the EOS R a gold award. Kidding! Just kidding.

Gold isn't good enough for the EOS R crowd. If it doesn't score over 100, get the Platinum Award, and camera of the decade, they will be severely disappointed.

That is why it is best to read the entire test than rely on some arbitrary score. There is enough information to see if this camera meets one's needs. That is why I don't care about someone else's pick. We are all different photographers with different needs. I am very careful to make a recommendation. I need to make one that fits their needs not mine.

Whatever the EOS R gets some people will be happy and other's not. What matters to Canon is who actually buys it. If it sells well they will continue with similar designs. If not then it is back to the drawing boards.

I have no doubt that Nikon could have come out with a far superior focusing system, they have the know-how. Just, then they would have no selling point for the inventory of DSLRs they still want to sell.

I don't doubt that next year we'll have an improved model, and a full sports model prior to the Olympics.

Far better than Sony such as in A9 and A7 III? Don't think so. You think Sony will stand still? Sony has announced animal eye-AF and will more focus on AI pattern recognition. Soon ML will at the AF level that no DSLRs can compete. If a personal eye-AF works so well, why future AI-based AF cannot trace an athlete or a flying bird so reliably? That is not a separate small auxiliary AF/AE sensor can compete.

Good shot AF is processor-limited. Nikon's been known to be limited by processing speed in their DSLRs in the past. Now that they've moved up to their newest generation (D5, D500, D850), they've buffed up their processors. For DSLR. For mirrorless use, the new processors probably aren't enough, as mirrorless is taking in a ton more data at a time.

Nikon has released firmware version 2.0 for its full-frame Z6 and Z7 mirrorless cameras, and its all about autofocus. The update adds Eye AF, improves performance in low light, and allows for full-time auto-exposure subject tracking at 12 fps.

We've been shooting with Nikon's compact ultra-wide zoom, the 14-30mm F4. It's one of the first few native lenses available for Nikon's full-frame mirrorless system, and as a bonus supports screw-in filters – a rarity for this kind of lens.

Nikon has announced more details of firmware in development for the Z6 and Z7. As previously reported, firmware is being planned that will add Eye-detection AF, CFexpress support and Raw video over HDMI.

Latest in-depth reviews

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

The HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW is a high quality standard prime lens for Ricoh's full-frame Pentax DSLRs. Ricoh has made great claims about its pro-grade construction and excellent sharpness – how does it stack up?

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.